Hitler was the Antichrist

[fschmidt]

Hitler hated a lot of people. But, if you decide that you want to have a conservative totalitarian state, then things might not end up going exactly as you would have preferred. After that, it is too late. Liberal democracy is okay for me.

I don't understand your point. I am not a Hitler supporter. I just don't think Hitler was the Antichrist either. I think it is worth learning from history, which happens to be one of the points of the Old Testament.

The Orthodox Jews ended up being easy targets in Poland. And, they had absolutely nothing to do with liberalism and banking. Do you forget about Generalplan Ost? He wanted to depopulate Eastern Europe of especially Jews, but also Russians, Slavs, Poles, Baltic people, etc, and repopulate with Aryans. Hitler killed liberal Germans, but, in the East, it was a racial thing.

What is your point? Are you disagreeing with anything I said?

If you want to live in a place where Conservatism rules, maybe try Saudi Arabia?

Culture isn't one dimensional with liberalism at one end and conservatism at the other. I am not very fond of modern Islam either.

If they were born in Germany, and had German citizenship, then they were not alien.

Then your definition varies from mine, that's all.

The Vienna Philharmonic
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/m ... zi-secrets

Again, I am not sure what your point is. I have said that Hitler's racism was a mistake (just as jewish racism is).

Most Holocaust scholars reject blaming the Muslims.

I think "Holocaust scholar" is a contradiction in terms. The whole Holocaust thing is so politicized that almost everything said about it today is nonsense, and that covers both the Holocaust deniers and the Holocaust victimhood promoters. Netanyahu's view seems unusually reasonable and compatible with what I know of history, and Netanyahu doesn't have much of a history of sucking up to anyone.

I can understand the Grand Mufti not wanting his country being taken over by alien, European Jews. But, if you want the Jews to leave Europe, then where do you want them to go?

Hitler made a mistake, he just should have told the Grand Mufti to go to hell.

Of course Judaism today is just as racist as Nazism, and so guilty of exactly the same crime.

Well, I probably wouldn't go that far. The Israelis did accept Ethiopian Jews. No way would the Nazis have accepted people claiming to be Ethiopian Germans. One may enjoy a pleasant conversation with Jews. Not so with Nazis.

I totally disagree. Israelis did accept Ethiopian Jews on strictly racist terms. Culture is irrelevant. This is just like the Nazis. As for conversation, I find the white nationalists and even the Nazis to be far more civilized and tolerant on the internet than (cultural) Jews are or are any members of modern culture. Not that I am very anxious to socialize with either group.

I have recently been contacting Orthodox synagogues and Mennonite churches in the Dallas area to see if either could work for my Mikraite group. Dealing with Mennonites is a pleasure. Dealing with the rabbis is almost always a nightmare. Yesterday I talked to a rabbi who told me that I am arrogant for even attempting to interpret the Old Testament without the Talmud. Today I got an email from a rabbi calling me an unacceptable heretic for rejecting the Talmud. So it's quite clear that I will end up associating with Christians since they are much more reasonable. I know that Judaism wasn't always as f***ed up as it is today, based on what my parents told me about Judaism in Hungary. But today Judaism is a basket case, not really much different from Islam.

[pandabear]

It seems that some Orthodox Jews are actually pro-Hitler

http://www.dw.com/en/police-arrest-ultr ... a-16050103

Anyway,

http://ww2history.com/experts/David_Ces ... f_the_Jews

...What made the Nazis’ hatred of the Jews so unusual is that it was racial and it was biological. They believed that the Jews were not just the followers of an abhorrent religious doctrine, or that the Jews had grabbed too much economic influence, or even that they were too intrusive in politics or culture: what made the Nazis hatred of the Jews so different is that they believed that the Jews were biologically and racially distinct and that there was a kind of biological struggle for dominance over the entire human race between the Jews and everybody else.

This wasn’t something that could be solved through religious debate and argument, the conversion of the Jews, for example, wouldn’t do. The Nazis hated assimilated and converted Jews as much as they hated orthodox Jews. This was a struggle that was almost zoological, from the animal world....

[pandabear]

Hitler hated a lot of people. But, if you decide that you want to have a conservative totalitarian state, then things might not end up going exactly as you would have preferred. After that, it is too late. Liberal democracy is okay for me.

I don't understand your point. I am not a Hitler supporter. I just don't think Hitler was the Antichrist either. I think it is worth learning from history, which happens to be one of the points of the Old Testament.

And, one thing that we learned from history is that conservative totalitarian states don't end up being very nice, either. We're better off with liberalism. There is that old familiar Winston Churchill quote....

If you want to live in a place where Conservatism rules, maybe try Saudi Arabia?

Culture isn't one dimensional with liberalism at one end and conservatism at the other. I am not very fond of modern Islam either.

What place in the world do you consider most to your liking, then?

The Vienna Philharmonic
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/m ... zi-secrets

Again, I am not sure what your point is. I have said that Hitler's racism was a mistake (just as jewish racism is).

I was responding to your question "Were any Jews part of traditional German culture?" Jews were in the Vienna Philharmonic and in the Berlin Philharmonic--both important parts of German culture. (Yes, I know--Vienna is in Austria--but it is a part of the overall German culture).

Netanyahu's view seems unusually reasonable and compatible with what I know of history,

I'm not convinced that Hitler decided to kill the Jews because the Mufti said so. I might take the opinion of the "holocaust experts" over yours for now, but I would have to look into it some more.

I can understand the Grand Mufti not wanting his country being taken over by alien, European Jews. But, if you want the Jews to leave Europe, then where do you want them to go?

Hitler made a mistake, he just should have told the Grand Mufti to go to hell.

Are you saying that the Grand Mufti should have taken Europe's Jews?

Dealing with Mennonites is a pleasure.

I'll agree with you there. They are generally nice, humble people.

Dealing with the rabbis is almost always a nightmare. Yesterday I talked to a rabbi who told me that I am arrogant for even attempting to interpret the Old Testament without the Talmud.

Christians generally know a lot about the Old Testament--nothing about the Talmud. Christians aren't going to dispute dropping the Talmud.

Today I got an email from a rabbi calling me an unacceptable heretic for rejecting the Talmud. So it's quite clear that I will end up associating with Christians since they are much more reasonable. I know that Judaism wasn't always as f***ed up as it is today, based on what my parents told me about Judaism in Hungary. But today Judaism is a basket case, not really much different from Islam.

You were saying before that Liberal Jews should be kicked out of Judaism. Now, a rabbi calls you an "unacceptable heretic." Being a simple atheist might make your life easier.

[fschmidt]

http://ww2history.com/experts/David_Ces ... f_the_Jews

...What made the Nazis’ hatred of the Jews so unusual is that it was racial and it was biological. They believed that the Jews were not just the followers of an abhorrent religious doctrine, or that the Jews had grabbed too much economic influence, or even that they were too intrusive in politics or culture: what made the Nazis hatred of the Jews so different is that they believed that the Jews were biologically and racially distinct and that there was a kind of biological struggle for dominance over the entire human race between the Jews and everybody else.

This wasn’t something that could be solved through religious debate and argument, the conversion of the Jews, for example, wouldn’t do. The Nazis hated assimilated and converted Jews as much as they hated orthodox Jews. This was a struggle that was almost zoological, from the animal world....

Not only did Judaism violate the Torah, but it also failed to apply the point of the Book of Esther. The Nazis could have been reasoned with on their own terms. Nazism and Zionism were completely compatible and could have been allies.

And, one thing that we learned from history is that conservative totalitarian states don't end up being very nice, either. We're better off with liberalism. There is that old familiar Winston Churchill quote....

As I said, culture isn't one dimensional. I support the Enlightenment. Modern liberalism has nothing in common with the Enlightenment.

What place in the world do you consider most to your liking, then?

Right now Conservative Mennonites are who I most like.

Are you saying that the Grand Mufti should have taken Europe's Jews?

I am saying that Hitler should have allied with the Zionists and let them take Israel. Then Hitler would have gotten the atomic bomb first and he would have won the war.

Dealing with the rabbis is almost always a nightmare. Yesterday I talked to a rabbi who told me that I am arrogant for even attempting to interpret the Old Testament without the Talmud.

Christians generally know a lot about the Old Testament--nothing about the Talmud. Christians aren't going to dispute dropping the Talmud.

The Talmud is to Judaism what the New Testament is to Christianity. The difference is that rabbis are closed-minded and intolerant, and reject everyone who doesn't share their view, while Christians are generally tolerant. Talmudic Judaism is completely contrary to what the Torah stands for. The Talmud is evil while the New Testament is just harmless nonsense.

You were saying before that Liberal Jews should be kicked out of Judaism. Now, a rabbi calls you an "unacceptable heretic." Being a simple atheist might make your life easier.

I didn't tell the rabbi that Liberal Jews should be kicked out of Judaism. He called me a heretic for not accepting the Talmud.

People should be judged for what they do, not what they believe. The whole concept of heresy is repulsive. A sound religion should require certain behaviors, for example keeping the sabbath. This would eliminate liberals who are self-centered jerks who reject all moral behavior.

I used to be a simple atheist. Then I posted to an atheist forum that I liked the morality of the Old Testament. They accused me of being an atheist heretic and banned me. Then I stopped calling myself an atheist.

[Moretorque]

Nice post Fschmidt

[pandabear]

Not only did Judaism violate the Torah, but it also failed to apply the point of the Book of Esther. The Nazis could have been reasoned with on their own terms. Nazism and Zionism were completely compatible and could have been allies.

What Jews actually follow the Torah, though? The Ultra Orthodox do their best, but no-one is doing the animal sacrifices.

As I said, culture isn't one dimensional. I support the Enlightenment. Modern liberalism has nothing in common with the Enlightenment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

...Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, South America, and North America. In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism later survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism became a key component in the expansion of the welfare state. Today, liberal parties continue to wield power and influence throughout the world...

What place in the world do you consider most to your liking, then?

Right now Conservative Mennonites are who I most like.

Mennonitism was orthodox until about 1860, when most of the Dutch Mennonites and many in the city congregations of North Germany turned to Liberalism.

Are you saying that the Grand Mufti should have taken Europe's Jews?

I am saying that Hitler should have allied with the Zionists and let them take Israel. Then Hitler would have gotten the atomic bomb first and he would have won the war.

He wouldn't have had the atom bomb if the Jews were in Israel.

People should be judged for what they do, not what they believe. The whole concept of heresy is repulsive. A sound religion should require certain behaviors, for example keeping the sabbath. This would eliminate liberals who are self-centered jerks who reject all moral behavior.

According to some Christians, people are to be judged (in the hereafter) based entirely on what they believed--not what they did. But, religions exist to make money. If religions started eliminating self-centered jerks and liberals, they would have to weigh the loss of tithes and offerings from such individuals against, well, perhaps the larger tithes and offerings of those who are more sucked into the religion.

I used to be a simple atheist. Then I posted to an atheist forum that I liked the morality of the Old Testament. They accused me of being an atheist heretic and banned me. Then I stopped calling myself an atheist.

You seem to be taking other people's opinions too much to heart.

[fschmidt]

Not only did Judaism violate the Torah, but it also failed to apply the point of the Book of Esther. The Nazis could have been reasoned with on their own terms. Nazism and Zionism were completely compatible and could have been allies.

What Jews actually follow the Torah, though? The Ultra Orthodox do their best, but no-one is doing the animal sacrifices.

By "Torah" I meant the ethical teaching of the Old Testament. Orthodox Judaism doesn't follow this in the least.

As I said, culture isn't one dimensional. I support the Enlightenment. Modern liberalism has nothing in common with the Enlightenment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Another meaningless symantic point. Modern liberalism has nothing in common with classical liberalism. One primary trait of modern liberalism is dishonesty and the misuse of words.

I am saying that Hitler should have allied with the Zionists and let them take Israel. Then Hitler would have gotten the atomic bomb first and he would have won the war.

He wouldn't have had the atom bomb if the Jews were in Israel.

Why not? An alliance with Nazi Germany would have clearly been in the Zionist interest. Israel would also have had the atomic bomb and so would have been protected from Germany by mutually assured destruction. This would obviously have been the ideal path for Western culture, being purged of the evils of modern liberalism.

According to some Christians, people are to be judged (in the hereafter) based entirely on what they believed--not what they did.

At least they leave that to God, and they tolerate other viewpoints here on earth, unlike the rabbis.

But, religions exist to make money. If religions started eliminating self-centered jerks and liberals, they would have to weigh the loss of tithes and offerings from such individuals against, well, perhaps the larger tithes and offerings of those who are more sucked into the religion.

The Conservative Mennonites clearly don't take this approach.

[pandabear]

Why not? An alliance with Nazi Germany would have clearly been in the Zionist interest. Israel would also have had the atomic bomb and so would have been protected from Germany by mutually assured destruction. This would obviously have been the ideal path for Western culture, being purged of the evils of modern liberalism.

Three generations later, it is easy to speculate about various scenarios under which the axis powers could have won, and what would have been the result. Similar to guys arguing about football games. The Japanese came close to Darwin, and had they captured Darwin, it would have spelled the end of modern liberalism for Australia. An alliance with the Zionists just wasn't in the cards. According to Nazi doctrine, what it comes down to is that Jews just aren't pretty enough to be allowed to live.

According to some Christians, people are to be judged (in the hereafter) based entirely on what they believed--not what they did.

At least they leave that to God, and they tolerate other viewpoints here on earth, unlike the rabbis.

Some Christians are not as tolerant as your Mennonite friends, who have also become tolerant of homosexuality. Some Christians, like John Hagee, have turned from anti-Semitism (e.g., blaming the Jews for having crucified Christ two millenia ago) to absolutely loving Jews to death.

But, religions exist to make money. If religions started eliminating self-centered jerks and liberals, they would have to weigh the loss of tithes and offerings from such individuals against, well, perhaps the larger tithes and offerings of those who are more sucked into the religion.

The Conservative Mennonites clearly don't take this approach.

You're not a threat to the Mennonites--your Karaite Synagogue isn't going to cost them any worshippers, and they will feel better about themselves for having helped you. You are a potential threat to the rabbi. Of course he is going to double down on the authenticity of the Talmud. Getting rid of you now will be easier than dealing later with a bunch of Synagogue members who start thinking that the Talmud isn't all that it is cracked up to be.

[fschmidt]

An alliance with the Zionists just wasn't in the cards. According to Nazi doctrine, what it comes down to is that Jews just aren't pretty enough to be allowed to live.

You are wrong about this as the Haavara Agreement shows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

The Nazis made a big mistake by not following through on this, but it shows what was possible.

You're not a threat to the Mennonites--your Karaite Synagogue isn't going to cost them any worshippers, and they will feel better about themselves for having helped you. You are a potential threat to the rabbi. Of course he is going to double down on the authenticity of the Talmud. Getting rid of you now will be easier than dealing later with a bunch of Synagogue members who start thinking that the Talmud isn't all that it is cracked up to be.

I really don't see this difference, I reject both the Talmud and the New Testament. Maybe the difference is that the Talmud is more obviously absurd, so is less able to tolerate coexistence with other beliefs.

[pandabear]

You are wrong about this as the Haavara Agreement shows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

The Nazis made a big mistake by not following through on this, but it shows what was possible.

Ah, okay. One learns something new every day.

I wonder why they opted for the murder spree, then?

I really don't see this difference, I reject both the Talmud and the New Testament. Maybe the difference is that the Talmud is more obviously absurd, so is less able to tolerate coexistence with other beliefs.

Have you considered starting a website and series of YouTube sermons, to promote your religion? There is a Jew who goes by the name of "Brother Nathanael." He puts on a priestly robe and pretends to be an Orthodox Christian. His sermonettes are as anti-Jewish and pro-Holocaust as you're going to find. One thing that Jews and neo-Nazis have in common is an obsession with the holocaust--he found a niche. You might consider studying what he did, and build your own path to religion-building.

[pandabear]

The Nazis were also considering Madagascar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

I found an answer to my question.

At the end of 1940, Hitler asked Himmler to draft a new plan for the elimination of the Jews of Europe, and Himmler passed along the task to Heydrich. His draft proposed the deportation of the Jews to the Soviet Union via Poland. The later Generalplan Ost (General Plan for the East), prepared by Professor Konrad Meyer and others, called for deporting the entire population of occupied Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to Siberia, either for use as slave labour or to be murdered after the Soviet defeat. After the German failure in the Battle of Moscow in December 1941, Hitler resolved that the Jews of Europe were to be exterminated immediately rather than after the war, which now had no end in sight. Since transporting masses of people into a combat zone would be impossible, Heydrich decided that the Jews would be killed in extermination camps set up in occupied areas of Poland. The total number of Jews murdered during the resulting Holocaust is estimated at 5.5 to 6 million people.

Another path to victory would have been if the Japanese had decided to attack Russia from the East, and, especially, left America alone. The USSR would have fallen. And, the Jews could be living it up in Madagascar, rather than surrounded by bitter Islamic enemies who want to push them into the sea.

[fschmidt]

Have you considered starting a website and series of YouTube sermons, to promote your religion? There is a Jew who goes by the name of "Brother Nathanael." He puts on a priestly robe and pretends to be an Orthodox Christian. His sermonettes are as anti-Jewish and pro-Holocaust as you're going to find. One thing that Jews and neo-Nazis have in common is an obsession with the holocaust--he found a niche. You might consider studying what he did, and build your own path to religion-building.

I have a website:

http://www.mikraite.org/

And we are starting to record our Old Testament readings:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=29170

But of course I can't compete with Brother Nathanael. The general rule seems to be that the more idiotic something is, the more popular it is. So my views will never be popular.

The Nazis were also considering Madagascar.

Another path to victory would have been if the Japanese had decided to attack Russia from the East, and, especially, left America alone. The USSR would have fallen. And, the Jews could be living it up in Madagascar, rather than surrounded by bitter Islamic enemies who want to push them into the sea.

Yes, Madagascar would have been much better than Israel.

[pandabear]

But of course I can't compete with Brother Nathanael. The general rule seems to be that the more idiotic something is, the more popular it is. So my views will never be popular.

Well, you know the formula, at least.

Yes, Madagascar would have been much better than Israel.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/js ... ascar.html

In August 1940, the Third Reich officially endorsed the Madagascar Plan. Alarmed by the plan, the American Jewish Committee commissioned a special report, published in May 1941, that sought to demonstrate that Jews could not survive the conditions on the island. By that time, however, the Nazis were already well underway with a different "Final Solution" - the extermination program.

Ah, the fools. Madagascar even has some indigenous Jews.

http://www.jpost.com/Jerusalem-Report/T ... ret-415164

[pandabear]

Still, the real reason that the Nazis wanted the Jews out of Europe: you aren't pretty enough.



Back in 1492, Jews (and Muslims) in Spain had the option of converting to Roman Catholicism, and then they could stay in Spain. For the Nazis, no such option was to be afforded to Jews--they even hated assimilated Jews, and people with partial Jewish ancestry. It wasn't about international banking--the Nazis depended on their Swiss bank accounts. Liberalism wasn't the issue--a lot of Jews are very conservative. Liberal Gentiles were also in danger, but not quite to the extent of Jews.

Perhaps the Nazis would have relented, had they seen some of these IDF chicks:





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjahyCihiiw

[Winston]

Fschmidt,
I dont understand how the nazis would have developed the atomic bomb first if they had allied with the zionists? Didnt Robert Oppenheimer and the Manhattan project work for America? Are you saying the zionists could have given the Manhattan project to Germany if they wanted to? If so, how?

Also, who wrote the Talmud and what does it say? Why doesnt it get any attention in the western media?